[AtlUmpSteve]

Agreed. But R1's location and actions weren't part of the original post.

Regardless, my primary point is that we don't automatically grant immunity to this already retired player without considering if there was interference.

I personally oppose the concept that the offense can (and usually does) intentionally attempt to confuse a catcher by running to draw an unneeded throw with impunity in this instance, when doing so in another setting is clearly defined as interference. We hold the defense to a standard of rules knowledge and judgment while making the offense immune from knowing, understanding, or even caring if it is committing is intended to be legal interference. But, that is my soap box, not my ruling.

By the rule, it is unlikely; but don't dismiss any possibility thinking the offense is completely immune to run.